Editor's Corner

Editor's Corner
We may be "what we eat," but we are also what we read,
write, save, do, remember, and celebrate—and what we
tick off on the national census every ten years, if given the
opportunity. In the three articles that are the core of this issue, there
is a wide range of identity definers. Jennifer Attebury's "lonely guys"
are Swedish and Swedish-American by virtue of their being first-generation
immigrants, as well as what they read, with whom they
associate, and, especially, what they write home about. Ernst F. Tonsing's
great-grandmother, Lovisa Anderson, was more a very reflective col­lector
of useful wisdom than a Swedish American, if we are to judge
by the collection of clippings she ferreted away for what may have
been occasional review. Richard Hudelson's Scandinavian immigrant
workers in Duluth are ethnic in terms of their names, the neighbor­hoods
they lived in, the groups they joined, and the voting options
they made; but they were also workers concerned about jobs, work­ing
conditions, wages, and the right to unionize. Consider as you read
each essay just how these very different people are identifying them­selves
in very complex ways.
Related to these articles are some recently published reports from
the United States Census Bureau on the results of the 2000 tally and
a number of newspaper articles associated with those results. (Hope­fully,
David E. O'Connor will have a far more analytical article for us
in the near future.) I dealt briefly with the 2000 Census in the April
2000 Editor's Corner. In particular, I pointed out the option that one
of every six households would get to complete the long version of
the census questionnaire and, in the process, would be asked to
specify their ethnic ancestry, "no matter how many generations they
have been in this country." Also, if a person believed he or she had
more than one ancestry, they could list a second—so all those Nor­wegian-
Swedish Americans and the like could identify themselves.
Total numbers would be projected on the basis of the sample ob­tained.
The results available thus far present a variety of pictures, all
dependent on how you use the numbers.
The total U.S. population came in at 273,643,274, including
160
just over 243 million born in the United States and about 30.4
million foreign born. Of the latter, a little more than twelve million
were naturalized citizens. For the country as a whole, the following
table indicates some of the ancestry survey results.
ANCESTRY
2000* 1990 Difference
Danish 1,502,600
Finnish 797,642
Icelandic 51,091
Norwegian 4,541,254
Swedish 4,339,357 4,680,863 -341,506
Scandinavian 507,035
U.S./American 19,644,182
German 46,488,992 57,985,595 -11,496,603
Irish 33,067,131 38,739,548 -5,672,417
Italian 15,942,683 14,714,939 +1,227,744
Polish 9,053,660 9,366,106 -312,4461
* First and second reported combined
What do the numbers mean? Some conclusions can be drawn
easily. For example, there are still over 4.3 million people in this
country who consider themselves Swedish Americans, and they are
still out-numbered by the Norwegian Americans. There are 20 per­cent
fewer German Americans, 15 percent fewer Irish Americans,
and 3.6 percent more Italian Americans than there were in 1990.
Exactly what the option "Scandinavian" means is unclear. Perhaps it
gives individuals in the fourth or fifth generation a suitably vague
choice, or it makes sense of the mixtures-by-intermarriage that have
been produced over several generations, or it reflects a preference for
regional identification over a specifically national one, or it is an
option for those who, like some of my students, confuse Sweden with
Switzerland and think Scandinavia is a country.
Do the changes indicate simply a decline in raw numbers or
161
something more complex? Laurent Belsie argues for the latter in an
article in The C h r i s t i a n Science M o n i t o r titled " A new nationalism on
the rise."2 He claims two things are happening. The first involves
"assimilation," especially among the older, European immigrant groups.
Under this familiar banner he includes "intermarriage, education,
[and] upward mobility," generational distance from the original im­migrants,
the absence of any living immigrant in homes to serve as a
reminder, and achievement of the immigrants' dreams (economic
success). The second essential part of his explanation is the growth of
nationalism, a process he believes was underway well before 11 Sep­tember
2001. As a result of both, more Americans were/are choosing
to identify themselves as "American" rather then select some "for­eign"
option. According to his math, "58 percent" more people
claimed their identity was American in 2000 than in 1990. At the
same time, the number choosing German was down by 26 percent,
Irish by 21 percent, English by 25 percent, and Dutch by 27 percent.
He ignored the rise in Italian Americans, but did include the spec­tacular
increases in the number of individuals claiming sub-Saharan
African (+252 percent) and Arab (+38 percent) ancestry—without
explaining either. (Are only the descendants of certain European
immigrant groups becoming nationalists?) Belsie's conclusions might
lead one to predict that ethnic identities will soon vanish entirely. I
hardly think that will happen, however. For Swedish Americans and
other Scandinavian groups, the changing numbers are not alarming.
Nor do they seem to be matched by any widespread, precipitous
declines in ethnic organization memberships, attendance at cultural
events, interest, or enthusiasm.
The data also show that the geographic redistribution of Swedish
Americans continues. Here Minnesota Swedish Americans can be
particularly encouraged by the census numbers. As David Peterson
noted in an article in the M i n n e a p o l i s S t a r T r i b u n e , Minnesota had
regained its title as t h e most S w e d i s h s t a t e , a ranking it had lost to
California in 1990. Alas, however, Norwegians still outnumber Swedes
in the state 851,000 to 487,000.3
1. U.S. Census Bureau, Q u i c k Tables, QT-02. Profile of Selection Social
Characteristics: 2000, on the web at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/
162
OTTa...=D&qr name=ACS EST GOO QTQ2& lang:; for 1990 see David E.
O'Connor, "Who are We? The Swedish Americans and the 1990 U . S. Census,"
S A H Q 48, no. 2 (April 1997): 69-90.
2. Laurent Belsie, " A new nationalism on the rise," The Christian Science
Monitor, 11 June 2002, 2-3.
3. David Peterson, "Census 2000: Minnesota again leads U.S. in Swedes" (9
June 2002), at http://www.startribune.com/viewers/story.php ?template=
print a&.tstory=2889551. See also Timothy Egan, "Lutefisk (uff da) Reigns in
Revival of Nordic Roots," The N e w York Times, 12 May 2002, 14.

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

All rights held by the Swedish-American Historical Society. No part of this publication, except in the case of brief quotations, may be reproduced in any manner without the written permission of the editor and, where appropriate, the original author(s). For more information, please email the Society at info@swedishamericanhist.org

Editor's Corner
We may be "what we eat," but we are also what we read,
write, save, do, remember, and celebrate—and what we
tick off on the national census every ten years, if given the
opportunity. In the three articles that are the core of this issue, there
is a wide range of identity definers. Jennifer Attebury's "lonely guys"
are Swedish and Swedish-American by virtue of their being first-generation
immigrants, as well as what they read, with whom they
associate, and, especially, what they write home about. Ernst F. Tonsing's
great-grandmother, Lovisa Anderson, was more a very reflective col­lector
of useful wisdom than a Swedish American, if we are to judge
by the collection of clippings she ferreted away for what may have
been occasional review. Richard Hudelson's Scandinavian immigrant
workers in Duluth are ethnic in terms of their names, the neighbor­hoods
they lived in, the groups they joined, and the voting options
they made; but they were also workers concerned about jobs, work­ing
conditions, wages, and the right to unionize. Consider as you read
each essay just how these very different people are identifying them­selves
in very complex ways.
Related to these articles are some recently published reports from
the United States Census Bureau on the results of the 2000 tally and
a number of newspaper articles associated with those results. (Hope­fully,
David E. O'Connor will have a far more analytical article for us
in the near future.) I dealt briefly with the 2000 Census in the April
2000 Editor's Corner. In particular, I pointed out the option that one
of every six households would get to complete the long version of
the census questionnaire and, in the process, would be asked to
specify their ethnic ancestry, "no matter how many generations they
have been in this country." Also, if a person believed he or she had
more than one ancestry, they could list a second—so all those Nor­wegian-
Swedish Americans and the like could identify themselves.
Total numbers would be projected on the basis of the sample ob­tained.
The results available thus far present a variety of pictures, all
dependent on how you use the numbers.
The total U.S. population came in at 273,643,274, including
160
just over 243 million born in the United States and about 30.4
million foreign born. Of the latter, a little more than twelve million
were naturalized citizens. For the country as a whole, the following
table indicates some of the ancestry survey results.
ANCESTRY
2000* 1990 Difference
Danish 1,502,600
Finnish 797,642
Icelandic 51,091
Norwegian 4,541,254
Swedish 4,339,357 4,680,863 -341,506
Scandinavian 507,035
U.S./American 19,644,182
German 46,488,992 57,985,595 -11,496,603
Irish 33,067,131 38,739,548 -5,672,417
Italian 15,942,683 14,714,939 +1,227,744
Polish 9,053,660 9,366,106 -312,4461
* First and second reported combined
What do the numbers mean? Some conclusions can be drawn
easily. For example, there are still over 4.3 million people in this
country who consider themselves Swedish Americans, and they are
still out-numbered by the Norwegian Americans. There are 20 per­cent
fewer German Americans, 15 percent fewer Irish Americans,
and 3.6 percent more Italian Americans than there were in 1990.
Exactly what the option "Scandinavian" means is unclear. Perhaps it
gives individuals in the fourth or fifth generation a suitably vague
choice, or it makes sense of the mixtures-by-intermarriage that have
been produced over several generations, or it reflects a preference for
regional identification over a specifically national one, or it is an
option for those who, like some of my students, confuse Sweden with
Switzerland and think Scandinavia is a country.
Do the changes indicate simply a decline in raw numbers or
161
something more complex? Laurent Belsie argues for the latter in an
article in The C h r i s t i a n Science M o n i t o r titled " A new nationalism on
the rise."2 He claims two things are happening. The first involves
"assimilation," especially among the older, European immigrant groups.
Under this familiar banner he includes "intermarriage, education,
[and] upward mobility," generational distance from the original im­migrants,
the absence of any living immigrant in homes to serve as a
reminder, and achievement of the immigrants' dreams (economic
success). The second essential part of his explanation is the growth of
nationalism, a process he believes was underway well before 11 Sep­tember
2001. As a result of both, more Americans were/are choosing
to identify themselves as "American" rather then select some "for­eign"
option. According to his math, "58 percent" more people
claimed their identity was American in 2000 than in 1990. At the
same time, the number choosing German was down by 26 percent,
Irish by 21 percent, English by 25 percent, and Dutch by 27 percent.
He ignored the rise in Italian Americans, but did include the spec­tacular
increases in the number of individuals claiming sub-Saharan
African (+252 percent) and Arab (+38 percent) ancestry—without
explaining either. (Are only the descendants of certain European
immigrant groups becoming nationalists?) Belsie's conclusions might
lead one to predict that ethnic identities will soon vanish entirely. I
hardly think that will happen, however. For Swedish Americans and
other Scandinavian groups, the changing numbers are not alarming.
Nor do they seem to be matched by any widespread, precipitous
declines in ethnic organization memberships, attendance at cultural
events, interest, or enthusiasm.
The data also show that the geographic redistribution of Swedish
Americans continues. Here Minnesota Swedish Americans can be
particularly encouraged by the census numbers. As David Peterson
noted in an article in the M i n n e a p o l i s S t a r T r i b u n e , Minnesota had
regained its title as t h e most S w e d i s h s t a t e , a ranking it had lost to
California in 1990. Alas, however, Norwegians still outnumber Swedes
in the state 851,000 to 487,000.3
1. U.S. Census Bureau, Q u i c k Tables, QT-02. Profile of Selection Social
Characteristics: 2000, on the web at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/
162
OTTa...=D&qr name=ACS EST GOO QTQ2& lang:; for 1990 see David E.
O'Connor, "Who are We? The Swedish Americans and the 1990 U . S. Census,"
S A H Q 48, no. 2 (April 1997): 69-90.
2. Laurent Belsie, " A new nationalism on the rise," The Christian Science
Monitor, 11 June 2002, 2-3.
3. David Peterson, "Census 2000: Minnesota again leads U.S. in Swedes" (9
June 2002), at http://www.startribune.com/viewers/story.php ?template=
print a&.tstory=2889551. See also Timothy Egan, "Lutefisk (uff da) Reigns in
Revival of Nordic Roots," The N e w York Times, 12 May 2002, 14.